Are 2 ATI's better than 1 NVIDIA ?

Hi all,
Im on the brink of buying a new Mac Pro and as I have a limited budget I need to make a few decisions. I want to use my two existing monitors and was wondering which would be better..
Using one NVIDIA GeForce 8800
0r
Using two ATI Radeon HD 2600 cards
I know the NVIDIA is probably a better card but im assuming if each monitor has its own card thats also quite good.
Both options cost about the same when added
I will be using the new machine for HD video and 3D work. To keep costs down im thinking its best to go for a lower processor but a better graphics card configuration with lots of RAM.
Any thoughts much appreciated.
Thanks
Matt

ATI has better drivers for some Mac applications and people have been disappointed in Nvidia so far and hoping that they will eventually develop better drivers, like they do for Vista.
Apple doesn't sell the Radeon 3870 so far, and being retail, probably will not but it is available from ATI (trade in your old card) or OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Item_XLR8YourMac.cfm?ID=10876&Item=ATI100435928

Similar Messages

Are Java Data Objects better than EJB's

can anyone kindly explain how JDO's are better than EJB's. or an URL where I can get the info.
sreedhar

I sometimes hear about people implementing their entity bean persistence using JDO, but it would make a LOT more sense to me to front entity beans with a JDO interface. Entity beans provide a good mechanism for handling transactions, caching, etc., while JDO provides a very simple persistence interface.

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

Are there any xml parsers better than xerces?

hi, I need to find an efficient parser for my project. I am currently using the Xerces1.4.4 parser from Apache. Are there any xml parsers better than xerces? Do I need to change any code if I switch to a new parser?
Thanks!!!

I have not seen any comparisons but an XML parser (both sax and dom) now comes standard with java 1.4. You'll probably need to change your code but you won't have to ship Xerces with your app.

Are Aperture's editing tools similar to or better than PS Elements?

Are the editing tools in Aperture similar to or better than PS Elements?
I'm an amateur photographer - I need images for my web site - plants and gardens, mostly, I have a perennial plant nursery.
I've been using PS Elements 2.0 to manipulate images, mostly rotation, sharpen resizing, adjusting contrast....
Aperture sounds very interesting - the tools for viewing and comparing images sound more graceful and easy to use.
Thanks - paul
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Out of interest, I went over to the Adobe Lightroom forums and found the following:
"Lightroom is aimed at being a workflow for handling raw camera images doing mostly global corrections. Photoshop Elements is meant for handling processed images mostly and allows you to do fine local adjustments
Global means adjustments which are applied to the entire image such as tonal correction etc whereas localized corrections are something like removing a hair out of place, doing composite images, or removing red-eye."
Lightroom is Adobe's soon-to-be competing product, so it's basically equivalent to Aperture (until you look at the details - but that's another topic). The comments quoted above are relevant to Aperture as well.
- Pierre

Which of these computers are better than

im a graphic designer and I want to buy one of these
Which do you think is better
1.macbook pro
2.66 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 gb ram
NVIDIA 9400 and NVIDIA 9600 GT dual graphics
2.macbook pro
2.4GHz Intel Core i5
4GB 1066MHz DDR3
Intel hd Graphics5 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M dual graphics
thanks..

I have an MBP with the next geneeration of the Intel grpahics and the AMD discrete graphics and like both. Daughter just got a new MBP with the same Intel graphics and the next generation of the AMD as a replacement for her 2009 MBP. Likes the Intel better than what was in that old MBP...and she is a senior art director at a large ad firm.
If you can, it would be best to see the two machines side-by-side to compare the graphics.

Are Classes better than Function groups and Modules

Hi,
Are classes better than Function groups? For example if you want to execute something is back ground or use parallel processing you can't do it using classes. Even inside classes most of the places we use Function modules.
Then how classes are beneficial?
Regards,
Deepak Bhalla

Yes they are compared in the sense that the class and function group are the containers, and the methods and function modules are the interfaces in which you interact with the encapsulated data.
Again if you are developing an application in which you are not forced to push the processing to differenet work processes, then using classes/methods is preferrable. The reason I say this, is because anything coming from SAP will most likely be implemented as a class as opposed to a function group. This is not to say that SAP will not create new function modules, because of course there still is a use for them.
Regards,
Rich Heilman

Why are the jpgs that are generated in my camera better than the ones i create from the nef file in camera raw?

i shoot raw+ jpg in camera, for some reason the jpgs that come from my camera (nikon D300) always seem better than the jpgs i create
from the nef files in camera raw. i am saving at the highest quality. the jpgs from the camera seem to have more detail in highlights
better color more vibrant, sharper. could my camera be doing some enhancements to the jpgs before processing?

I had similar thoughts back when I first started shooting raw. Really, it's just a matter of editing to your personal taste.
Yes, that camera applies lots of presets before creating the jpeg, as Trevor.Dennis mentioned. Also, as he said, you can far surpass native jpegs with raw.
If you need it more vibrant, make it so. If you need to bring down the highlights, do so. Need sharpening? Apply some.
Here is one of my edits that I made a tutorial of: Sunrise Raw File Edit - Adobe Lightroom - Landscape Photography - YouTube. It is one of my less dramatic edits, but still a good one.
I don't want to clutter this thread with links, but if you take a look at my Facebook page, I put a lot of before and afters up in January and February. A Google search for Benjamin Root Photography will bring it up.
I shoot in raw, and highly recommend it.
I'll leave you with a nice NEF RAW file before and after:
BTW, D300 is a nice camera, I've used it...
Benjamin

Are Apple routers better than others?

I have wi-fi at my home and I have problems with AirPlay as it sometimes skips.
I'm thinking of buying Time Capsule and I want to know if it's powerfull enough to work in a normal size house and will it solve AirPlay problem?
Is wi-fi on Time Capsule better than on Motorola VIP1003 router?

The broadcast power of all routers is limited by law. Every manufacturer is running their products at 100%, so there will be very little difference between routers of different manufacturers.
If you have having difficulty now, replacing your router with a Time Capsule will likely not solve your problems.
Instead, you will probably need to look for "extending" or "repeating" devices to provide a stronger signal throughout your house....whether you elect to add the Time Capsule or not.

Are 2 drives better than 1

I am not planning on doing any raid. My Question:
If you have 2 drives: 1 for the boot and the other for data:
(250g each). Would that setup be better than one 500g drive in terms of speed etc?
Just looking for opinions?

Beside of that purpose on the previous post, I prefered split that HD into two for back up and ease of restoring data and system purpose.
So the next time you want to reinstall the OS and all programs I could concentrate on the Os system drive without having to much worry about data which is stored on other drive or if I want to back up data, just concentrate on data drive without worrying about accidently deleted system or part of program files.
Good Luck.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Is Intel better than Power PC?

Hi
Is Intel better than Power PC?
The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1G Ram

Daimon,
I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
Good Luck,
-j

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

Are 2 ATI's better than 1 NVIDIA ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for